First FX-57 Review

I was disappointed to see a lack of Pentium M comparisons. With desktop motherboards available, with the new 915M chipset even, this processor is the FX's greatest adversary.

Considering that this is an enthusiast site, I would expect reviewers to think outside the box and test the Pentium M, because it is quite a performer.
 
I must say it was an informative review. Though without much OCing. Ive never thought of [H] as being a "!!!!!!" site. Unfortunately this review gives that impression. While we all know the AMD wouldve spanked the P4 handily, it still wouldve been nice to see for comparison sake. Kyle has always seemed to go with whats giving the best bang at the moment. And that doesnt make you a "!!!!!!" it makes you a smart consumer.
 
MONSOON said:
I must say it was an informative review. Though without much OCing. Ive never thought of [H] as being a "!!!!!!" site. Unfortunately this review gives that impression. While we all know the AMD wouldve spanked the P4 handily, it still wouldve been nice to see for comparison sake. Kyle has always seemed to go with whats giving the best bang at the moment. And that doesnt make you a "!!!!!!" it makes you a smart consumer.
Click to expand...
The exclamation marks are " F a N b o y" btw
 
MONSOON said:
I must say it was an informative review. Though without much OCing. Ive never thought of [H] as being a "!!!!!!" site. Unfortunately this review gives that impression. While we all know the AMD wouldve spanked the P4 handily, it still wouldve been nice to see for comparison sake. Kyle has always seemed to go with whats giving the best bang at the moment. And that doesnt make you a "!!!!!!" it makes you a smart consumer.
Click to expand...

Kyle has been praising the P4s for a long time now, ever since HT came out. Then the dual core X2 came out and he has once again seen the light. ;)
 
I was dissapointed to see the FX-57 outperform the X2 in gaming, but would still lean towards an X2 for other applications. I like the idea of video editing while playing a game to ocupy the time it takes to work with videos. Now for fiber to the house...
 
mryerse said:
I was dissapointed to see the FX-57 outperform the X2 in gaming
Click to expand...
why exactly? the FX is geared towards the high end enthusiast rigs that need every bit of gaming power possible... thus it should be faster :D
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
why exactly? the FX is geared towards the high end enthusiast rigs that need every bit of gaming power possible... thus it should be faster :D
Click to expand...
And that its 400Mhz Faster in Single Threaded applications....

mryerse said:
I was dissapointed to see the FX-57 outperform the X2 in gaming
Click to expand...
I mean, what did you expect?
 
I like this cpu. I may have to replace my FX-53 with this one considering it doesn't play nice with my Corsair memory.

I'll probably get a better overclocking as well.
 
MONSOON said:
I must say it was an informative review. Though without much OCing. Ive never thought of [H] as being a "!!!!!!" site. Unfortunately this review gives that impression. While we all know the AMD wouldve spanked the P4 handily, it still wouldve been nice to see for comparison sake. Kyle has always seemed to go with whats giving the best bang at the moment. And that doesnt make you a "!!!!!!" it makes you a smart consumer.
Click to expand...


It is funny. Intel gets a positive review, I am an Intel fan-boy. ATI, AMD, NVIDIA...same rule applies.

Bottom line is this, if you think HardOCP is a fan-boy site, then you really need to close your browser and go elsewhere.
 
Thanks Kyle. May be a worthy upgrade to my 3000+ that I've saved $ with now.
 
Dual core is going to be the future, I'm offering it only right now to my client on all of my mid range and up systems now unless its for a business with a special need.

You might also want to go with the 7800GTX if you buy a new card.
 
if you are overclocking there is no reason not to get a X2 (unless you have phase and only want the fastest single thread performance, ie 3.5ghz FX-57, vs. 3.2ghz X2). The X2 is modestly clocked, and will OC similar to a venice/san diego. Meaning that the X2 will hit speeds of 2.5-2.9 ghz with a decent after market aircooler (why bother with stock on a chip that expensive?). The FX will likely top out around 3ghz on air. This means that for around the same price as the FX (or less, ie. 4400+/4200+ should oc just as well as their big brothers, amd can't be binning these this tight with only a 200mhz range on the whole line) you could have a dual core chip that does ~stock FX speeds. The FX will scale a little bit, but not nearly as much as the X2, as it is far closer to the ceiling of what these chips will do. I'm not a huge fan of dual core yet, but if I can get a 2 core chip that clocks within 100mhz of the FX stock speeds (maybe more), for less money, why sacrifice the second core for a few hundred mhz? Of course I'm not in the market for that kind of CPU, but if this is your pricerange, the X2 is a whole lot more bang for the buck (if you are overclocking, otherwise it has a much lower clockrate, and unless you are big into multithreading/encoding, the FX will leave you better off).
 
On a real person's computer even at a 100Mhz disadvantage a X2 would probably feel smoother in games. The second core can take care of all the minor tasks in the background like AV, AIM/MSN, or anything like that that might just be taking a few percentages, but you know truly have a full core dedicated to the game.

I'd always suggest an X2 if you're within the price range of a dual core, they are just a better investment to me than a FX, even if you do game.
 
I bet benchmarks would show that any background operations are trivial, I never game while running a ton of stuff in the background, no reason to tie up a ton of ram with that stuff. On top of that, 100mhz will not be lost by light background stuff, otherwise more people would have been doing SMP with gaming. Everyone knows that SMP means nothing more gaming. The whole "smoother" arguement is understandable, if there are some serious things going on in the background, but otherwise it is probably just your head trying to tell you that you were right to buy a $600 processor, ie. placebo effect (it does happen). I'm not trying to flame anyone, but the X2 is really just the same technology that has been around for a LONG time. Now sure if you were overclocking, the X2 is a good buy over the FX, I'm all for that one. However currently it won't be any different than a single core CPU in games. Most people will tell you (read the [H] FX57 article if you haven't already) that games are GPU bottlenecked anyways. SMP has always been for power users, nothing has changed in that respect. Dual core has made SMP cheaper, easier, and will likely bring greater "desktop" utilization from developers, but as far as "right now" goes, read the articles and see for yourself, the 2nd core is pretty much untapped.

Yeah, a much better investment, IF you are overclocking. If not, the X2 just doesn't make sense yet. Though I am of the opinion that everyone should overclock! :D
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
why exactly? the FX is geared towards the high end enthusiast rigs that need every bit of gaming power possible... thus it should be faster :D
Click to expand...

What I mean is that I am happy the FX-57 is such a strong performer. However, I had hoped that the X2 would blow away the faster clocked single core chips even in single threaded applications, making single core chips obsolete. Since that is not the case, I am very impressed with the FX-57, and dissapointed at the same time.
I guess I am waiting for that next revolution that really takes computing into the next generation, not just a speed bump here and there, with a design change that increases performance a bit. That stuff is all cool, but it gets boring after seeing it happen time and again. I like change.
 
If you plan to overclocked FX57 with phase cooling, wait until second batch come to retail (approx. 2/3 weeks after its available). Imo, FX57 with production week of 0512 to 0516 will be no different than FX55 San Diego, but with 14x200 stock default multi hard coded.....and has cold/frost bug.....See this...

immagine38gt.png

fx0513mpmw4hi.jpg
 
centvalny said:
and has cold/frost bug.....See this...
Click to expand...
did you see conrad's testing on his newark? i think there's a good chance mine isn't bugged either :D
 
damn, those two chips look like the same thing, except for the increased price tag, ouch.
 
+Heres the two....FX57(Hard coded 55 eng. sample) and FX55BN....
fx3xu.jpg

screenshot0736lc.jpg


cbid with fx55BN@ 14 multi.....
screenshot0023oc.jpg
 
I fully understand the reasoning for not benching any Intel chips against the FX57. There would be no point to it at all. Intel cannot keep up with the FX53 and the 57 is two models ahead.

However, I have been following Hardware for years and have a pretty good Idea of where most products stand against each other.

But please keep in mind that new enthusiasts are born each day. They start out without much of a clue of where to go for info, or how to find it. It takes a long time to find sites to trust, learn info and then seperate Fact from opinion.

Maybe in the future when reviewing a product you guys could at least post some links of previous Benchs of a competing product line just for a newbies reference. Should'nt be a problem since you guys already have tons of reviews on anything and everythign worth benching.

We were all beginners at some point.
 
eblislyge said:
I fully understand the reasoning for not benching any Intel chips against the FX57. There would be no point to it at all. Intel cannot keep up with the FX53 and the 57 is two models ahead.

However, I have been following Hardware for years and have a pretty good Idea of where most products stand against each other.

But please keep in mind that new enthusiasts are born each day. They start out without much of a clue of where to go for info, or how to find it. It takes a long time to find sites to trust, learn info and then seperate Fact from opinion.

Maybe in the future when reviewing a product you guys could at least post some links of previous Benchs of a competing product line just for a newbies reference. Should'nt be a problem since you guys already have tons of reviews on anything and everythign worth benching.

We were all beginners at some point.
Click to expand...

The information is there and easily organized in our menus and is also fully searchable. At some point we are not repsonsible for holding anyone's hand. If they need more information, they can easily find it on our site or others. :D
 
eblislyge said:
I fully understand the reasoning for not benching any Intel chips against the FX57. There would be no point to it at all. Intel cannot keep up with the FX53 and the 57 is two models ahead.

However, I have been following Hardware for years and have a pretty good Idea of where most products stand against each other.
Click to expand...
Not even the Pentium M? :confused:

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=770ct479&page=5
 
Note that the 2.13 GHz Pentium M in stock configuration seems to have the upper hand in games...
 
Got one.. :D I hope it will run with -90C, if not I will replace it with my trusted XP2800 Tbred B....
 
Vapo can stand @ -43C load (evap. temp..+/- -3 cpu temp) with 259x14 @1.65V. My enermax660W is really warm though....
 
I traded all of the cpus for this one. Still waiting for pc ice's C though..Hopefully it will work out :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top